Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2021 9(1) 9-27

Journal of Social Sciences of Mus Alparslan University anemon

Derginin ana sayfası: http://dergipark.gov.tr/anemon

Research Article ● Araştırma Makalesi

Factors Affecting The Organizational Silence of Academics Employed at The Universities in Pakistan Pakistan'daki Üniversitelerde Çalışan Akademisyenlerin Örgütsel Sessizliğini Etkileyen Faktörler Zekeriya Nas a,* aAssoc. Prof. Dr., Van Yuzuncu Yil University, Van/Turkey. ORCID: 0000-0003-2589-4795

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Article history: This study aims to reveal various factors affecting the organizational silence of academics employed Received: 14 January 2020 at the universities in Pakistan. The teaching staff of the universities in Pakistan is among the most Received in revised: 18 January 2021 experienced and intellectual individuals and represents the elite sections of the society and the nation. For this reason, their opinions are considered to be very important for the generations of posterity. Accepted: 30 January 2021 The teaching staff at the universities is also composed of planners, analysts, supervisors, and Keywords: evaluators. The survey was conducted on 410 teaching staff such as lecturers, assistant professors, Academician associate professors, and professors of various universities from six different provinces: public, private, and army. The data were analyzed through the Statistical Package for Social Scienses (SPSS) Factor program. Organizations generally hire employees who have some experience, ideas, knowledge in Organization order to develop their organizations. In summary, it can be said that there are generally two options Organizational silence for the staff working in any organization when perceiving wrongdoing in their workplace. They must University either decide to speak up or continue to be silent While trying to find out factors affecting organizational silence, the observers believe that fear is one of the main factors in staff decisions to be silent about the issues and concerns in organizations. To overcome organizational silence, polyphony is accepted as one of the ways to solve the existing problem.

MAKALE BİLGİSİ ÖZ Makale Geçmişi: Bu araştırmanın amacı, Pakistan'daki üniversitelerde görev yapan akademisyenlerin örgütsel Başvuru tarihi: 14 Ocak 2020 sessizliğini etkileyen farklı faktörleri ortaya çıkarmaktır. Pakistan'daki üniversitelerin öğretim Düzeltme tarihi: 18 Ocak 2021 üyeleri, toplumun ve milletin seçkin kesimlerini temsil etmenin yanı sıra en deneyimli ve entelektüel kişiler arasındadır. Bu nedenle onların görüşleri gelecek nesiller için çok önemli kabul edilmektedir. Kabul tarihi: 30 Ocak 2021 Üniversitelerdeki öğretim üyeleri aynı zamanda planlamacılardan, analistlerden, denetçilerden ve değerlendiricilerden oluşmaktadır. Çalışma altı eyaletten çeşitli kamu, özel ve askeri üniversitelerde Anahtar Kelimeler: çalışan Okutman, Yardımcı Doçent, Doçent ve Profesör 410 öğretim elemanı üzerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veriler Sosyal Bilimler için İstatistik Paketi (SPSS) paket programıyla analiz Akademisyen, edildi. Organizasyonlar, genellikle kendilerini geliştirmek amacıyla bazı deneyimlere, fikirlere ve Faktör, bilgiye sahip olan elemanları işe alırlar. Özetle, herhangi bir kuruluşta çalışanlar işyerinde yanlış bir Organizasyon, şey algıladıklarında kendileri için genel olarak iki seçenek olduğu söylenebilir; ya çekinmeden Örgütsel sessizlik, konuşmalılar ya da sessiz olmaya devam etmelidirler. Araştırmacılar, örgütsel sessizliği etkileyen faktörleri bulmaya çalışırken, örgütlerdeki sorunlar ve endişelerle ilgili personelin sessiz kalmasına Üniversite karar vermelerinde korkunun ana etkenlerden biri olduğuna inanmaktalar. Örgütsel sessizliği yenmek için çokseslilik, mevcut sorunu çözmenin yollarından biri olarak kabul edilir.

1. Introduction information and use technology for the universities where they work and enable the development and growth of Human resources are the most important sources of wealth nations as being locomotives for development. Academics to countries. Among them, academics occupy the most need to produce information in the field of politics and critical position as they are the people who generate

** Sorumlu yazar/Corresponding author e-posta: [email protected] e-ISSN: 2149-4622. © 2013-2021 Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi. TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM DergiPark ev sahipliğinde. Her hakkı saklıdır. http://dx.doi.org/10.18506/anemon.674992 Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 10 management within governments, as well as producing Decision making and changes in organizations are affected information and technology for the universities where they significantly by those directorial beliefs and organizational work. structures, which generate a climate of organizational silence. This situation does not lead to the quality of Manpower is one of the most critical variables of work-life decision making, as it is challenging to express multiple in organizations since organizations' success often depends points of view because employees hesitate to develop ideas. on the changing conditions of the world today. Growing It blocks feedback. Hence, there is no ability either to detect worldwide competition among the organizations is or correct mistakes within an organization. Blocking proliferating nowadays. The importance of human feedback may lead to the poor performance of the resources and information sharing is increasing in organization. Through organizational silence, there cannot organizations. Organizations need to utilize human be proper, relevant knowledge transfer, development resources. Human power, such as the employees’ sessions, improvement of employees’ abilities, and critical knowledge, information, and skills, is needed to survive. positive changes (Alparslan, 2012; Rodriguez, 2004). Other However, many employees prefer remaining silent. They do negative effects of organizational silence affecting the not desire to share what they know. The number of organization are that there may be no critical self- professionals who desire to keep silent is not at the preferred examination of ideas or course of action, stress and anxiety, level. Companies need to be more at peace with their and feeling of no control (Morrison & Milliken, 2004). employees to be successful in their conscious and However, according to Erdoğdu (2018), organizational unconscious act as catalysts to remain silent (Korkmaz, performance can either increase or decrease with 2018; Soycan, 2010). This empirical study targets to organizational silence behavior. He points out that measure factors affecting organizational silence. Hence, the organizational silence is an operational process of purpose of this research paper is to find out to what extent indicating a disagreeable state of affairs in the organization. the teaching staffs of universities in sub-continent Pakistan speak up, are concerned about their organizational issues, or Effectiveness in an educational organization, as withhold their opinions. The universities' professors are the effectiveness is the degree-effort of the manager or the most intellectual people to generate, produce, share ideas, organization to achieve the goals previously determined; the and lead societies. Not only societies are affected, but also success of the stakeholders in the management of the organizations. parameters that show the effectiveness of education and their approach to the goals is the measure of effectiveness Organizational silence is commonly seen in organizations. (Akbaba, 2018). Organizational silence negatively affects In contrast, there are not enough empirical studies related to organizations' development and success by decreasing the this issue, especially regarding teaching staff at universities effectiveness of stakeholders in achieving better goals. worldwide. Hence, this paper investigates the dimensions of organizational silence factors as they are perceived by Changes in decision making and organizations are teaching staff of universities and exploring the effects of significantly affected by these executive beliefs and the these dimensions (Vakola & Bouradas, 2005) on organizational climate that creates an organizational silence educational organizations. environment. This situation does not allow it to decide on In today's changing conditions, human power is one of the the quality of decision-making. There cannot be multiple most critical variables of working life in organizations since perspectives, alternatives, high strategy formation, and the success of organizations generally depends on human innovation because employees hesitate to come up with resources (Soycan, 2010). For this reason, the positions of ideas. It prevents feedback, so it is not capable of detecting the employees were examined from a different perspective. or correcting errors within the organization. Blocking One of them was employees’ speaking up behavior. It was feedback can result in poor performance of the organization. not accepted as the organizational silence until the There can be no appropriate, relevant information transfer, influential work of some writers such as Morrison and development sessions, employees' skills, and critical Milliken. For instance, Morrison and Milliken (2000), positive changes (Alparslan, 2012; Rodriguez, 2004). Other termed “Organizational Silence” or “climate of silence” to adverse effects of organizational silence on the organization describe the collective-level phenomenon of employees are that the course of ideas or action, stress and anxiety, keeping information, opinions, or concerns regarding work- feeling uncontrolled cannot be critical review or control related problems or issues. According to them, (Morrison & Milliken, 2004). organizational silence is the result of essential beliefs propounded by directors, executives, such as directors, The definition of organizational silence and employee executive’s fear of negative feedback, and a set of implicit silence differ from person to person. However, still, it would beliefs cherished by directors, senior managers, which lead be better to define the differences between organizational to the configuration of the organizations (Rodriguez, 2004). silence and employee silence. While organizational silence Some top managers fear receiving negative feedback from is seen as an event predominantly at the organizational the subordinate. They try to force them to feel compelled to level, the focus of employee silence is predominantly at the remain silent, to create a climate of silence (Sayğan, 2011). level of individual analysis (DeShon, Kozlowski, Schmidt, With silence, employees of organizations can suppress Milner & Wiechmann, 2004; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). interest related to difficult organizational issues. Hence, it However, since both terms are used interchangeably in can be said that silence in organizations should be advanced analysis, employees' silence can turn into considered meaningful beyond simply the absence of phenomena at the team and organizational level (Çetinkaya speaking-up (Brinsfield, 2009; McGowan, 2002; Pinder & & Karayel (2019). Employee silence can be defined as the Harlos, 2001). intentional not speaking up of questions, ideas, concerns, 11 Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 information, or opinions concerning problems and issues The employees' detailed information of the organization can regarding their work and organization. As mentioned help generate both individual and organizational outcomes, earlier, organizational silence can be accepted, although such as improved depression, condensed performance, and conceptually similar to employee silence, a collective level satisfaction (Brinsfield, 2009). However, with silencing, it phenomenon of employees of an organization keeping can be said that problems and concerns are made invisible information with themselves not sharing with others, in the organization (McGowan, 2002). It is crucial to find especially with directors, managers, or CEOs (Brinsfield, out how members of organizations, members of education 2009). According to Aboramadan, Turkmenoglu, Dahleez, care organizations in particular. Do they collectively do and Çiçek, (2020), employee silence can be defined as a what they did not do as individuals? It is also essential to behavior where an employee purposefully and deliberately know whether they demonstrate their abilities to convey does not disclose important and vital information and does their concerns and beliefs honestly and faithfully. It can be not share important information with authorized persons easily seen how collective reality can be misperceived while and the organization where he/she works. One of the main open and truthful communication is impaired or silence is reasons employees keep silent is because they often think interpreted as harmony. As a result of this, companies can that sharing information will not change their work take action or fail to take action in paradox to what may be environment. planned (Henriksen & Dayton, 2006). Silence has a strategic role as a form of communication to affect others It is said that employees can be a more significant resource (Nafei, 2016). In some cultures, silence is an indicator of or element of transition in organizations, innovation and showing respect or disrespect towards an individual creativity, learning process, and other aspects that can have (Brinsfield, 2009). a critical effect on overall organizations’ success. However, in some organizations, workers do not get the chance to Regarding the problem statement, Pakistan is believed to participate through their suggestions and “say” in the have many educational problems. It is believed that one of decisions made by higher authorities/executives or these problems is organizational silence. Organizational managers. There is the possibility that they could be afraid silence has a significant impact on the ability to improve to contribute to the organizations with their expertise. On educational institutions. Although organizational silence is the other hand, successful and well-performing widespread in educational institutions, it cannot be said that organizations should have employees with knowledge, there is sufficient empirical study in this regard, especially skills, and knowledge and share not only for this but also for concerning education and training staff at universities all organizational success and development, leading to over the world (Alqarni, 2020). organizational success. (Nikmaram, Yamchi, Shojaii, Zahrani, & Alvani, 2012). With this study, different variables were examined to evaluate factors affecting the organizational silence of Aboramadan, Turkmenoglu, Dahleez, and Cicek (2020), academics working at the universities in Pakistan. With the also pointed out that in some sectors, such as education and solution of organizational silence at universities in Pakistan, health, employees' silence may adversely affect their work. it can be facilitated to achieve the desired results in If employees do not remain silent, they can find solutions to education. It can be said that there is a significant difference negative problems in the business and share them with other in development among states and provinces. This situation colleagues. This situation can help to stop the wrong also affects the quality of education at universities in sequence in the organization. Therefore, it is beneficial for Pakistan. Finally, as in underdeveloped/developing authorized and influential people to create an atmosphere countries, organizational silence is one of the most critical where employees can express their thoughts comfortably. factors affecting education's successful results at Pakistani Otherwise, silent employees cannot improve themselves. universities. They can lose their motivation, and they cannot be satisfied with their works, then they can experience work-related The senior management generally believes that the stress. Since this prevailing situation has negative effects on employees take care of themselves and are unreliable. They the employees' attitudes and behaviors, its spillover effect also generally believe that they always know the most about can also be on overall organizational performance business issues that employees do not know. They do not negatively. give this group the right to speak knowingly and sometimes unknowingly. Nikmaram et al. (2012) indicate that there are two different kinds of researchers related to the descriptions of This scientific research aims to reveal and analyze factors organizational silence; 1) who accepted silence as loyalty, affecting the organizational silence of academics working at not to voice ideas, and concerns, 2) who accept universities in Pakistan. In addition to this main purpose, organizational silence as opposite to anticipated outputs, answers to the following sub-objectives were sought; such as job satisfaction of employees and organizational commitments. Employees’ intention to quit and the 1. Are you satisfied with the current job? organization's overall contribution to the organization are 2. Are you afraid of receiving negative feedback or evaluated throughout their organizational commitments information from the subordinate? (Nafei, 2016; Shirbagi, 2007). According to Slade (2008), it 3. Do you have any fear of isolation? is a collective phenomenon while the organization's 4. How do you see the management and organization employees keep their thoughts and concerns related to factors? possible organizational issues. 5. How do you see the work-related factors?

Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 12

6. Do you have a fear of damaging the relations arising and desiring to protect their status in their work lives they from the management attitude in your organization? do not want to take any action as they have a strong belief 7. How does organizational loyalty affect you? that there will be no possibility to change, to promote desired organizational climate, circumstances though this This study's importance is that the desired improvement in state of affairs can affect the performance of employees the overall quality of education in developing countries negatively and suffering them by learning further related to cannot be achieved at different educational levels. When the organizations (Bildik, 2009; Bowen & Blackmon, 2003; main reason for this is investigated, it is understood that it Morrison & Milliken, 2004; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). As is caused by the country's low performance of human stated above, the ideas, information, and opinions that the resources. However, educators, who are valuable members employees do not share with their managers intentionally or of the educational community, are human resources, which unintentionally for some reason can sometimes be vital for are vital for all individuals' growth from the first years to the their organizations (Tangirala & Ramanujam, 2008). end of their lives. Employees can fail or develop an organizational 2. Literature Review performance with organizational silence as it is an Even though there is not enough amount of research on interactive choice. Although there is the difficulty, such as silence in the management literature, employees silence in its emotionally complex expression, silence can be a organizations is quite common and should not be ignored pressure mechanism for organizations and employees by (Brinsfield, 2009; Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003; Pinder & conveying support and allocation or disrepute and Harlos, 2001) resistance (Bagheri, Zarei, & Aeen, 2012). There are many organizations where people prefer staying silent. It is Organizational silence is a theoretically negative and common, especially when it is unfavorable concerning the dangerous obstacle for effective learning, changes, and CEOs (Dyne et al., 2003). organizations' performance because it blocks negative feedback and information. Organizational silence can be There is extreme competition among national, international, referred to as the collective-level phenomenon of doing or and multinational organizations worldwide; hence, (Nafei, 2016) saying very little in response to (Kasemsap, companies hire employees to profit from them through their 2017) substantial, vital problems or issues happening in an responsibilities, high competence, skills, etc. Although organization or industry because of undesirable reactions these organizations expect their staff to take their (Morrison & Milliken, 2004). Employee silence can refer to responsibilities, they do not support the employees’ the thoughtful and sensible veil of secrecy of theoretically knowledge and relationships. Moreover, it is believed that quite important information for an organization (Takhsha, it happens because of not having the trust and organizational Barahimi, Adelpanah, & Salehzadeh, 2020). Hence, silence (Panahi, Veiseh, Divkhar, & Kamari, 2012). executives' fear of receiving negative feedback is accepted Employees prefer keeping silent because they adjust to as one of the most critical conditions that help to have a variations rather than speaking up to mention their beliefs climate of organizational silence (Slade, 2008). related to possible opportunities and concerns that can impact organizational performance (Slade, 2008). One of the paramount factors of getting high corporate performance is employees' involvement in the planning and Researchers have different definitions of organizational implementation of actions to achieve both organizational silence: According to Pinder and Harlos (2001), it is the goals and objectives. For this reason, organizations need to absence of voice. Dyne, Ang, and Botero (2003) believe create an environment where employees can express their organizational silence is a multi-dimensional construct such knowledge, experience, and ideas much better and even as acquiescent silence, defensive silence, and prosaically share their knowledge more actively. Those employees can silence. Organizational silence refers to the collective contribute to organizational development. Employees who behavior of employees of organizations. In some remain silent due to some cultural, biological, and social organizations, most employees remain silent (Liu, Wu, & factors can interfere with the expression of thoughts and Ma, 2009) because most of the employees believe that their opinions that contribute to the organization's growth (De los ideas may not be supported by their colleagues Santos, Rosales, Falguera, Firmo, Tsaras, & Labrague, (Bayramoğlu & Çetinkanat, 2020). 2020). Generally, employees do not dare to talk the truth Organizational silence is defined as a collective-level about critical situations, events, or issues in their phenomenon of saying or doing very little (Takhsha, organizations as they may not be understood correctly by Barahimi, Adelpanah, & Salehzadeh, 2020) in reaction to higher authorities and managers. They also have faith, substantial issues that face a company. Silence means not ideas, and belief in that mentioning; speaking up about their speaking, not writing, not being present, and not being heard organizations' issues is useless because it will not make any and being ignored, becoming quiet, restricted, destructed, difference. They prefer remaining silent because they downgraded (Henriksen & Dayton, 2006; Nikmaram et al., receive negative responses from their directors and 2012; Vakola & Boudaras, 2005). Many factors affect superiors, especially if it is something unfavorable organizational silence. The factors such as individual concerning them. The other factor is that the top factors, social factors, and organizational factors affect, management mostly knows the most about the importance oblige to form and sustain organizational silence. Individual of organization. Being silent is not a matter of personal factors refer to the obtainability of experiential, selfish issues, an individual behavior. It can be seen in the whole prejudice, as well as the status quo trap. In contrast, social organization. It is a general attitude of employees working factors refer to conformism, dispersal of accountability, and in an organization. Employees do not feel self-confident, micro-climates of suspicion. Finally, organizational factors fear not receiving positive feedback from their managers, refer to undisputed beliefs, good provider illusions, and 13 Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 neglect of interdependence. The worth of silence brings a can prevent a pluralistic company's growth as multiple substantial toll. It can occur inside or outside of the viewpoints cannot be spoken up and discussed easily organization (Henriksen & Dayton, 2006). (Donaghey et al., 2009; Sayğan, 2011). According to Soycan (2010), the factors that cause organizational silence Organizational silence is a collective-level phenomenon are various managerial and organizational problems, lack of containing powerful forces that cause extensive withholding experience, fear of isolation, fear of damaging relationships, of information by employees concerning possible problems and emotional commitment to supervisor and colleagues. and issues (Çetinkaya & Karayel, 2019; Morrison & As the research objective has been put forth related to the Milliken, 2000). It means that organizational silence is a premises as mentioned earlier of organizational silence, the term instead of voice and occurs when employees cannot researcher hypothesizes that: develop; bestow generously to the organization they work for (Brinsfield, 2009). Organizational silence is the feeling H2. Organizational silence is related to feeling that of employees who do not share those feelings, ideas, and speaking up can have negative consequences for their information about organizations' enhancement (Kahveci, position in the organization; the issues can be 2010). misunderstood by their directors. Employee silence can be defined as withholding sincere manifestation about interaction, concealing and withholding H3. Organizational silence is related to lack of experience, information, reasoning, a collective phenomenon, and fear of isolation, fear of damaging relationships. affecting appraisals of organizational circumstances to individuals who seem equipped altering the circumstances Employees of organizations often have personality (Dyne et al., 2003). characteristics. They have some thoughts, information, and opinions for positive, productive ways to improve working 2.1. Factors affecting Organizational Silence conditions in organizations. They are familiar with the Organizational silence is generally perceived as a problems of organizations. While employees have some component acting either “for” or “against” in organizations ideas, information, plans, aims, and goals relate to the (Donaghey, Cullinane, Dundon, & Wilkinson, 2011). There organizations they work with, they sometimes hesitate to are various factors influencing employee commitment that express or share what they know. They keep remaining has been defined in various ways, such as commitment to silent. There are many other reasons why they cannot share the manager, occupation, profession, or career. It can be said with others or not willing to express their opinions with their that organizational commitment emphasizes employees’ directors because of decision-making procedures, the commitment to the organization (Brown, 2003; Meyer & ineffectiveness of directors, low organizational Allen, 1997; Yousef, 2003). performance, and organizational inefficiencies. Hence, they Several previous researchers interpreted and made evident do not dare to speak up about those issues (Bagheri et al., the silence as loyalty, and according to them, nothing was 2012; Slade, 2008). Although they do not dare to speak up wrong. They believed that a climate of silence could not about such problems or facts in their organizations to their work in contradiction to an organization's preferred managers or feel bound to remain silent, they keep still outcomes. It cannot be said that researchers today share the chatting about these issues with each other when they are same ideas regarding a climate of silence. They believe that alone. Organizational silence is not considered as an a climate of silence can contradict the preferred outcomes individual behavior as it spreads throughout the of the organization (Bagheri et al., 2012; Ivkovic & Shelley, organization. Moreover, sometimes the organization's new 2010; Nikmaram et al., 2012). Silence is common among members can be affected by it since organizational silence the shield officers from bureaucratic organizations such as is a general attitude. They prefer remaining silent in order military and quasi-military organizations (Ivkovic & not to be suffered (Sayğan, 2011). Shelley, 2010; Nikmaram et al., 2012). Concerning the research objective of explaining organizational silence, the It is beneficial to find out the variables that may lead to researcher hypothesizes that: organizational silence. This is an issue that affects many organizations to some degree: fearing of top managers H1. Organizational silence is related to organizational negative feedback or information from top superiors, loyalty. especially when coming from below as opposed to above, a mistaken belief that employees care less related to the Several scholars indicate that there are many reasons for organization than management does, the beliefs that it is organizational silence (Ivkovic & Shelley, 2010). Many only the management that is familiar and knows almost employees know the truth about assured matters and everything about issues of organizational importance but complications facing the company but unfortunately dare that employees are only “self-interested,” have been not express the crux of the matter to their directors. One of together for a long time as top management, being many the main reasons is that many employees can feel that levels in the organizational hierarchy and high-power speaking up can have negative consequences for their distance (Donaghey et al., 2009; Morrison & Milliken, position in the organization. The issues that can be 2004). understood not correctly by their directors, executives, and top management can be seen as threats. The other reason The idea that the staff does not have power over the matters can be an organizational structure. This phenomenon defers and their behavior can increase the partnership's difficulties from the “organizational silence.” It is a treacherous and negative attitudes because of not having relevant weakness to organizational learning and change as well. It experience in perceiving main issues. It is also believed that a direct relationship between organizational silence and Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 14 organizational decision makings is apparent. On the other organization to protect confidential information (Dyne et hand, that is the organizational silence, which commonly al., 2003). makes the organizational decision–making effectiveness. Hence, employees can take positions as formalities. By the There are organizational silence effects on the firm's time they may become fragile in an organization. They progress as it avoids the negative responses with the impact pretend to fulfill their duties, not lose their positions and of which the firm is not able to examine and accurate the salaries, rather than do their duties on an authentic level. faults (Panahi et al., 2012). They do not feel close to the organization, so they do not

deal with the organization's issues. This insensitivity affects Group culture and behaviors are valuable, as one of the the performance of employees. The success or failure of an other factors that cause staff to remain silent is that people organization depends on the performance of the employees. have similar or the same lifestyles. On the other hand, the Unfortunately, it is difficult to say that the climate of silence factors such as the personnel, demographic characteristics, allows employees to strain the organization emotionally. such as gender, age, ethnicity, and race of the manager may However, to create an emotional and strong commitment, affect the dispread of concepts associated with the employees' psychological needs such as feeling organizational silence as this difference among staffs and comfortable, knowledgeable, and competent must be met managers have impacts on attitudes of managers toward the (Sayğan, 2011). According to Meyer & Allen (1991), staffs’ ideas. There are vertical differentiation effects in affective commitment means an employee’s emotional ties organization hierarchy on silence (Morrison & Milliken, to the company. Otherwise, it is difficult to go on with the 2004; Panahi et al., 2012). There is a similar influence of company. social factors on a group's behavior; hence conformity, diffusion of responsibility, and microclimates of distrust Although employee silence diffuses in organizations a lot, have also influenced organizational silence (Henriksen & it can be said that the concept is intangible, and academic Dayton, 2006). The other factor is that the employees are research on employee silence is comparatively sparse. frequently unwilling to share information that could be There are some common reasons why there is little interpreted as negative or intimidating to the people who are consideration given to silence in earlier researches; 1) many their seniors in a company hierarchy. Employees working understand silence as the absence of speech, 2) difficulties in an organization often have concerns related to the in studying employee silence (Dyne et al., 2003). organization’s activities. However, unfortunately, they are As mentioned earlier, the employees cannot decide whether scared to communicate to the people who are above them, they should remain silent or not (Donaghey et al., 2011). such as their bosses and directors, about these concerns. They believe that their managers can react negatively as it Employees do not want to express their thoughts and do not can cost them up to the point that they may not be allowed speak up the reality because of fear of negative effects and because of opinions that their ideas are not appreciated to work in the organization any more (Milliken, Morrison, (Dyne et al., 2003). Generally, the directors do not accept & Hewlin, 2003). Hence, it can be said that fear has a critical their weakness to be mentioned by their subordinates; role in staffs’ decisions to be silent related to the issues and hence, they tend to avoid any information that may suggest concerns in organizations (Greenberg & Edwards, 2009). As far as it concerns the research objective in the their weakness (Bagheri et al, 2012). It can also be said that explanation of organizational silence, the researcher management accepts the employees, who do not accept the climate of silence, as problem makers and creators. These hypothesizes that: employees suffer when not remaining silent. However, the

turnover rate of silent individuals is less than the talking H4. Organizational silence is related to the personnel, ones. As stated earlier, employees keep remaining silent to demographic characteristics. keep their status in their work lives (Sayğan, 2011). While It is also believed that employees are sometimes silent these employees try to keep their status in the organizations, they can suffer by missing some potential contributions, because of not having comfortable handover information innovations, solutions, and creativity because of some related to current problems in an organization (Milliken et voices remaining silent. People should be allowed to speak al. 2003). Many employees remain silent because they do up. Otherwise, their voice can diminish over time and may not want to lose their status and salaries. Hence, they keep carrying on working in their organizations. Most of the sooner or later go underground (Rodriguez, 2004). employees believe that it is not possible to change the Therefore, it has been proposed that: organizational circumstances and environments as they may H5. Organizational silence is related to fear of negative desire, wish, and reject to take any action towards an effects (Morrison and Milliken, 2000). organization. The old employees most often encourage the new staff, help them lose their self-possessed, and have no H6. Teaching staffs keep remaining silent in order to hold future steps. Such new staffs also agree on undesirable onto their status in their organizations. organizational conditions and are normalizing. These On the other hand, scholars believe that it is not possible to undesired organizational circumstances will affect the continue social relationships without duplicity and productivity, motivation, and willingness of good intended conventional concealing or withholding of thoughts and employees to achieve organizational goals, targets, and feelings. Silence can exist in different ways; active, aims in the organization. This problem is an obstacle to conscious, intentional, and purposeful. This is a successful organizational development as it negatively affects indicator of silence since it can highlight the complex and employees, as there is no suitable environment for the multidimensional nature of silence. Silence can be strategic organization to work deeply (Sayğan, 2011). So an and proactive – conscious and purposeful, and intentional – employee can sometimes remain silent in his or her such as when staff intends to protect confidential 15 Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 information from others by withholding it and proactively Therefore, they do not trust their administrators. Based on conceal comments about proprietary corporation the above literature, this research posits that: information (Dyne et al., 2003; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). H7. One of the basic factors why teaching staff keep Individual differences, self-esteem, need for success, need remaining silent is that they believe that the administration for power, nesting, or communication, for example, may give punishment. understanding the nature, content, or value of the It is believed that even though employees trust themselves, information to be transmitted, are among the factors that still talking openly and participate in discussions on issues affect silence. In addition to previous interactions with the about the organization can be risky for them (Premeaux & observer (Dyne et al., 2003; Mirzapour & Baoosh, 2018) Bedeian, 2003). Unfortunately, organizational silence is and variables such as organizational level and environment, seen as a dangerous obstacle for organizational change and high vertical differentiation may affect silence (Bagheri et development (Morrison & Milliken, 2000). Nowadays, al., 2012). there are constant changes, increasing customer According to Nikmaram et al. (2012), the reasons for expectations, growing competition worldwide, and organizational silence are the following: employees of organizations are not only taking the initiative to emphasize quality, clear speech but also desire to take Organizational silence responsibility for increasing steadily. Nevertheless, the Directors from economic or financial backgrounds factors such as fearing of isolation, inability to upgrade, The management team is uniform in backgrounds promotion, and fear of being seen as problem creators do Administrators value hierarchies and compliance not let them proclaim their ideas openly. This situation sure High level of difference (e.g., gender, age) between affects and keeps employees silent frequently due to fear of management and employees isolation in the work environment. It is because of hesitating Management emphasis on control and efficiency to take positive steps in their organizations. It is not advised The organization operates a low community to do so in order to survive in global villages. They should environment be encouraged to share their experiences and ideas with high The organization is in a stable industrial sector authorities. Until and unless they do not share with directors Senior managers hired from outside the organization whatever they know, they may not be effective and not solve The organization relies heavily on contracted the organizations' issues. This is one of the main obstacles workforce in an organization's development and progress (Bildik, Organizational structure has centralized decision 2009; Brinsfield, 2009; Morrison & Milliken, 2000; making Premeaux & Bedeian, 2003; Quinn & Spreitzer, 1997; The organizational structure is less likely to have Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). Based on the above literature, formal feedback mechanisms this research posits that: Management reacts negatively to feedback and is less

likely to request H8. Organizational silence is related to fearing of isolation, Able to establish direct relationships with middle and promotion, and the fear of being a problem creator. lower-level employees

According to Slade (2008), two pivotal factors are causing As human beings are social creatures, they need to have organizational silence; (1) negative feedback of fear of close relationships with their partners. To remain silent management and (2) perceptions of the employee of the about the cause of people's concerns may lead them to be implicit beliefs management relate to employees. Research isolated from others. However, psychologically, this organizations often show that criticism and opposition situation is not accepted by many employees. They do not opinions are intolerant. Donaghey, Cullinane, Dundon, and feel and want to share information to be interpreted as Wilkinson (2011) state that hierarchical structure and negatively against them. This share is interpreted as organizational characteristics are essential for remaining unfavorable or a threat to the organization's hierarchy silent. (Bildik, 2009; Morrison & Milliken, 2000).

According to Morrison and Milliken (2000) and Bildik Employees can learn to remain silent through trial, bad (2009), employees in most organizations are prevented from experiences, observations, and colleagues' speeches speaking and talking about technical and political issues. It (Soycan, 2010). Many employees prefer keeping silent is believed that there are no administrative privileges in owing to variables such as a past trial, work experience, and some organizations and public policy. Many researchers good or bad experiences with their colleagues working at also believe that despite having many specific issues and the same time. They believe that they should remain silent problems in the workforce's organizations obviously, and in their speech and observations not to be suffered (Bildik, even though most of them are known by employees of the 2009; Meyer & Allen, 1991). As mentioned earlier, they do organization, they still do not inform their superiors and not want to take themselves into risky environments. They executives. In one survey conducted on 260 employees want to go on with their work without facing problems. The working in 22 different organizations in the U.S., it has been reason is that their perceptions of the potential negative risks found out that 70% of the employees could not dare to speak of speaking up strongly influence employees. They are also up openly about work-related problems. Respondents hesitating to speak up as they do not know what will happen believe that talking about the issues does not make any if they do. Employees get benefits from contextual difference and are afraid of getting a negative response from information obtained and from both past experiences and their managers. The main reason is that they believe that present observations (Slade, 2008). they can be given punishment by the administration as well.

Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 16

According to Slade (2008), there are five expected negative time is longer within the common cultural and individual outcomes of employees that can reflect the feeling of fear as power distance, dominating the economic and financial having an essential role in the decision of an individual to background. This creates a difference between senior stay or express silence: managers and lower-level employees. Personality characteristics such as gender, generation, ethnicity origin, 1. Having the fear of being labeled or viewed negatively, and age have effects on being silent in organizations. The 2. Having the fear of broken and damaged relationships, more gaps between senior management and employees, the 3. Having the fear of retaliation or penalty, more silence is common (Bildik, 2009; Morrison & 4. Having the fear of a negative influence on others, and Milliken, 2000; Nartgün & Kartal, 2013). finally Employees sometimes consciously and deliberately show a 5. Having the strong belief that speaking up cannot make a variety of ways of behaviors of remaining silent in their difference in an organization. organizations. It can be said that it sometimes happens by It is apparent that employees who work in organizations are spoken words, while given some tasks, accepting without generally potential organizational changes and may often be objection, and problems they try to show to other people reluctant to talk. The employees are afraid to talk about their working in the same organization (Bildik, 2009). partners and friends in negative situations as they believe Aboramadan et al. (2020), stated that some leadership styles the relationship between both sides can be affected and also lead to low service performance, low levels of suffered. They have very strong beliefs that it will make no participation, behavior, and job satisfaction. One of these difference in the speech anyway. On the contrary, they styles of leadership is narcissistic leadership. They have believe that they may face obstacles, lose their jobs negative effects on employees' residency. The issue is that promotion (Bildik, 2009; Kahveci, 2010; Soycan, 2010). such leaders do not welcome criticism and do not accept to be criticized. Moreover, there is no efficiency, high Those employees working in organizations do not make performance, motivation, and job satisfaction where there is decisions about managers of businesses or organizations no criticism. Narcissistic leaders are often unhappy with that they should remain silent about their decision at a time, criticism and frequently remain to be arrogant. or are not obligated to do so. There are a variety of reasons Unfortunately, they do not empathize, either. Narcissistic for pushing them to do so in organizations. On the other leaders do not want to share the knowledge they have. They hand, it can be said that both national and cultural norms usually hide or keep the information they have. Therefore, that contribute to organizational silence appear to be another such leaders do not hesitate to slander other people's one of the main reasons. It is also believed that people living opinions, even if they are positive. As a result, they often in countries with high power distance express their anger misuse their powers, not for good. Therefore, it is believed less, not sufficiently, concealing and not showing, pointing that such leaders prevent employees from easily sharing out directly their negative feelings of frustration about their their thoughts, ideas, knowledge, and experience. They can directors. There is, quietly, high pressure in a culture where even prevent staff from doing their duty properly. talking against the managers is accepted as ingratitude towards the place where they are earning money (Bildik, Hence, it can be said that employees' silence is closely 2009). related to various failures in most organizations. Moreover, the effects of silence have been found to go beyond limiting Another factor such as propelling employees is the silence the flow of information to directly impacting employees climate. Employees working in organizations believe that themselves and their ability to provide services talking about the issues, concerns, and ideas of organizations is not only in vain but also dangerous. This (Aboramadan et al., 2020). In silence, the employees' situation explains how silence climate occurs and develops dominant feelings are fear, anger, despair, cynicism, and in organizations. possibly depression. For them, the key point is tenacity. Unfortunately, in contrast, the obedient employees are, It can also help create a common sense of how to understand without consciously aware of their situations, more or less organizational policies and structures, patterns, reluctantly silent (Bildik, 2009). demographics, belief structures, communication processes of the senior management team, and how these factors are It can be said that one of the other factors is the “deaf ears frustrated by lower-level employees and fear of speaking syndrome.” This phenomenon serves as a norm of an out. Hence, thinking of their speeches can be dangerous for organization that disheartens employees’ open and direct them; they prefer to be silent as it may put them in guarantee expression of their dissatisfaction. Based on the literature and reliability (Bildik, 2009; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). review, Peirce and colleagues identified three themes associated with this: (1) insufficient policies of an Those are the managers who cause the development of organization, (2) managerial rationalizations, and (3) silence. The number of employees who cannot trust their organizational characteristics. So Deaf Ear Syndrome can managers in organizations is not small. They generally be defined as organizational inertia (Brinsfield, 2009). prefer to comment negatively on their subordinates’ attitudes, behaviors, ambiguous objectives, and goals or Some employees remain silent to save self-protection, self- organizations' inefficiencies. This condition creates withdrawal and state other behaviors in the form of organizational silence. The employees believe that orientation. This mutual distrust within the organization managers may punish them either directly or indirectly for harms the workplace the most. When employees sometimes enlightening faults or inquiring about their course of actions prefer not to speak of ideas as they see them the work- (Nikmaram et al., 2012; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). related risk issues, this situation can delay the analytical Especially in administrative groups, the average working solution of the problems hindering mention alternatives. It 17 Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 can also cause lead to the loos of new opportunities as well affective commitment. It can be said that there are three (Bildik, 2009). different types of organizational commitment, affective, continuance, and normative commitment, which are Generally, managers fear receiving negative feedback from different components of commitment. Although they have a subordinates. It is one of the most important factors that high correlation, the affective and normative commitment trigger a climate of silence in an organization. Managers do shows quietly dissimilar correlations with other variables not accept threats, awkwardness, and feelings of weakness such as outcomes of commitment (Allen & Meyer 1990; or ineffectiveness, incompetence (Bagheri et al., 2012). Meyer & Allen, 1997; Porter, Steers, Mowday, and Boulian, Feeling emotionally closer to the company individually and 1974). being involved in the company and their goals that affect One way to avoid organizational silence and ignorance is loyalty can exist as individual commitment, which is crucial that the leaders and directors of organizations need to for organizations to be effective and productive. Only with change their minds about what creates a good staff member. this way it is possible to facilitate and integrate the Conventionally, managers have envied the employees who employees emotionally into the company. The organization take the initiative, pride, and roll with the punches and do can achieve its success through the employees’ not complain, and try to stay in their place. There is a need performance. Hence, organizations should not let the for providers to help to learn in the organization. It is employees feel dissatisfied with their jobs; otherwise, they determined that timing of managers is crucial to value may merely do the least quantity required. No organization providers who ask annoying, impressive, or embarrassing can desire this situation for their goals. In order to have questions without seeing them as problem makers or higher performance, organizations should facilitate infiltrations (Edmondson, 2004; Tucker & Edmondson, employees to bond their organizations emotionally. How 2003; Wears, 2004). It would be beneficial to give the can they do it successfully? Organizations can provide values of the executives who present evidence contrary to better working environments for their employees to help the view that everything is all right, create the cognitive them be satisfied, motivated, and encouraged to do their discrepancy that causes change, and deviate from the usual works and jobs. The companies provided conditions should roles to help solve the problem. Above all, it is time for not create a climate of silence in the company, making managers and leaders to value these same qualities among employees feel helpless and insufficient. Otherwise, they themselves (Broeng, 2018; Henriksen & Dayton, 2006). can suspend working as a formality as they have to work in organizations. The employees can miss their enthusiasm, 2.2. Effects of Silence on Organization and Employees effectiveness, willingness, and self-confidence to alter Performance unexpected, undesired problems. This will affect their beliefs related to organizational objectives. Generally, the There are various negative effects of employee silence on employees are unwilling to mention the problems regarding organizations such as dissatisfaction, undesired behaviors, organizations as generally not interpreted correctly by monetary losses to the organization, suffering directors. They consider them as threats, and that is why communication, killing and impeding innovation, managers do not accept to take action. There cannot be perpetuating poorly planned projects, defective products, competing with these conditions because there are no and changing and weakening work attitudes and low comfortable feelings about the organizations (Jaros, 2007; morale. It shows how vital employee silence is for an Okpara, 2004; Sayğan, 2011; Tumwesigye, 2010). organization. For example, an organization can suffer a lot by not having appropriate communication. Hence Competition among institutions has increased due to rapid organizational silence is challenging in the organizational developments in technology and globalization that have setting (Bagheri et al., 2012; Doo & Kim, 2020; Panahi et transcended the countries' borders in recent years. al., 2012). Organizations can turn this competition in their favor to make sure that employees in organizations feel comfortable Similarly, there are various negative effects of employee related to sharing and sayings their thoughts, experiences, silence on the employees themselves, such as developing and knowledge. It is essential to have an environment where depression, health problems, decreasing personal well- they can easily express themselves and make original ideas being of employees, escalating stress, feeling guilty, having and creative suggestions. Otherwise, organizational silence psychological problems, and changing the possibility of may happen in the organization, which hinders and prevents changes in the organization. There will not be strong organizational development, productivity, achievement, relationships between individuals and an organization integration, and profitability (Çimen, & Karadağ, 2019). It because of the lack of trust. There are some effects of trust also has a destructively emotional impact on affective on job satisfaction, employees’ work behaviors, and commitment. So, it can be said that the greater the attitudes. That is why it can be said that employee silence organizational silence, the lower the organizational affects not only the organization but the employees as well commitment of the employees (Demirtaş, 2018). As (Bagheri et al., 2012; Nikolaou, Vakola, & Bourantas, mentioned before, human resources play a key role in 2011). achieving effectiveness, improvement, and efficiency of Consequently, the researcher suggested the following organizations to reach their goals and avoid failure. hypotheses regarding the research target for explaining Organizational silence affects these positive variables in organizational silence; organizations (Bordbar, Shad, Rahimi and Rostami, 2019). H9. Job satisfaction affects organizational silence. According to Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, and Topolnytsky (2002), the negative impact of work stressors H10. Lack of experience affects organizational silence. on employee health and well-being can be buffered by Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 18

According to Donaghey et al. (2009) and some other Acquiescent Silence writers, the destructive effects of organizational silence on Acquiescent Silence is defined as concealing relevant ideas, the organization can be as follow: information, or ideas based on resignation. Staffs disengage  Destructive effects of organizational silence on and are not likely to contribute opinions or suggestions innovation proactively as soon as employees believe they do not make a difference (Dyne et al., 2003; Greenberg & Edwards, Innovation in an organization can happen when employees 2009; Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). They also believe that feel free to generate new proposal viewpoints or concepts, activities will not be fulfilled; hence, they do not report and innovative perspectives, and ideas as silence kill innovation say anything related to the organization's issues and in organizations. For instance, without them, there cannot activities (McGowan, 2002). be critical self-analysis. It creates having unwell planned projects (Beheshtifar, Borhani, & Moghadam, 2012; Defensive Silence Donaghey et al., 2009). Alqarni, (2020), indicates that Defensive Silence is defined as concealing relevant innovation cannot happen unless staff can freely express opinions, information, or ideas as a form of self-protection their concerns, feelings, and especially opinions. Hence (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2019) based on fear, cynicism, and qualified academics can only contribute to the educational hopelessness. Employees need to have Defensive Silence institution by sharing their experience and knowledge on when they need to protect themselves from, primarily, problematic issues in a safe and encouraging environment. external threats as Defensive Silence is intentional and  Destructive effects of organizational silence on proactive behavior. It is believed that Acquiescent Silence organizational learning and Defensive Silence are not only more proactive, involving awareness and consideration of alternatives, but It is believed that there can be critical ideas, feedback of are more conscious decision to withhold ideas, information, information, or a course of action with dissenting and opinions (Dyne et al., 2003; Greenberg & Edwards, perspectives. With organizational silence, they cannot 2009; Morrison & Milliken, 2000). happen. It spreads through the company as if everything is working correctly. Miscalculations may expand from time ProSocial Silence to time. This false consensus pervades the top executives of ProSocial Silence is defined as concealing work-related the organization's views, which deal with silence as both ideas, information, or opinions with the aim of benefiting consensus and success. Hence, they may not filter out other people or the organization – based on altruism or negative information (Donaghey et al., 2009; Harvey et al., cooperative motives. Since ProSocial Silence is purposeful 2007). and proactive behavior, it focuses primarily on others (Dyne  Destructive effects of organizational silence on the et al., 2003). employee Passive Silence (Quiescent Silence) There are various destructive effects of organizational Passive Silence, although the individuals working in the silence on the employees. The well-known one is stress and enterprises have some knowledge about the problems and anxiety. It can lead to stress and anxiety because of an solutions in the organization and are aware of the inconsistency between facts or sentiments, belief, and alternatives available, they do not share the information behavior, faith. For example, a waitress who knows that his they have due to the concern of their superiors or other customers are not satisfied with the food but is afraid of employees because the results of their conversations will unexpected consequences can be stressed out by pretending not be met well, and mostly because they do not want to hurt to be okay when he knows it absolutely and therefore does themselves and need to protect themselves, hence stay silent not raise the issue to the authority. Organizational silence (Çavuşoğlu & Köse, 2019; Pinder & Harlos, 2001). can negatively affect an organization's employees by reducing motivation, causing psychological withdrawal and Pakistan has many problems in the field of education. turnover by the feeling of no control, a theoretically However, it is also known that the government makes treacherous weakness to changes and development in an innovations and efforts that are not sufficient to develop the organization. Organizational silence is a threat, a slope. Pakistan, like many countries in the field of considerable obstacle in front of those possible education, has problems. Organizational silence is a very improvements (Beheshtifar et al., 2012; Donaghey et al., effective factor in developing educational institutions. 2009; Slade, 2008; Warren, 2003;). Organizational silence is common in organizations; therefore, this article poses the problem of this research by Different types of silence exist in organizations (Greenberg examining the dimensions of organizational silence factors & Edwards, 2009), such as Acquiescent Silence, Defensive perceived by the teaching staff of universities and the effects Silence, ProSocial Silence, Quiescence silence (Dyne et al., of these dimensions on educational institutions. 2003). Each of them encompasses dissimilar reactions (Greenberg & Edwards, 2009). 19 Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27

3. Methodology a holistic approach was applied. Moreover, the researcher wanted to find out to what extent the teaching staff remains 3.1. Research Model silent in Pakistan's universities. In the second stage, written This research, which was conducted for “the factors questionnaires were prepared and handed out via e-mail and affecting the organizational silence of academics working at personal relationships to reach the participants. 410 of the the universities in Pakistan”, was conducted in a descriptive 500 surveys sent were received completely. This produced and relational screening model since it examined the a response rate of 82%. Therefore, the rate of respondents is existing situation. Relational screening model is a research reasonably high. The sample's responses were screened, model that helps to determine the presence or degree of co- analyzed through the Statistical Package for Social Sciences variation among multiple variables (Büyüköztürk, Demirel, (SPSS), and summarized for collective data presentation. Karadeniz, Akgün, & Kılıç, 2016). The last stage of this study was a detailed presentation of all the findings and conclusions drawn from the first stage of 3.2. The Population and Sample of the Research the data study and compared with the existing knowledge The study population was 30460, the acceptable error was for an explanation (Nas, 2011). 5%, and the suggested sample size was 532 (98%). The The researcher used a standard questionnaire to collect data. questionnaires were delivered to 500 people, 410 completed Dyne, Ang, and Botero, (2003), Vakola and Bouradas the questionnaires successfully. (2003) scales were used to examine organizational silence 3.3. Collecting and Analysis of the Research Data variables. In the survey, the population consists of higher education staff only in six different provinces of universities This study, which was carried out to affect the in Pakistan using the random sampling method. Based on organizational silence of academics working in universities the framework, 68 questions were prepared. in Pakistan, was applied to academic staff working in state, private, and military universities in six states in Pakistan. 3.4. Measures The method of this research was aimed to be completed in In a sample of 410 teaching staff of various universities three stages. In the first stage, a relatively detailed literature from six different states of Pakistan, eight IDVs are review was conducted on "the factors affecting constructed and measured to examine their effects on organizational silence at universities in Pakistan," in which organizational silence. Measures were constructed with Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 20 items drawn from the theoretical framework related to Lack of experience: This has 2 items. Questions included organizational silence (Dyne, Ang, & Botero, 2003; are “I am unsure what to say; I frequently remain silent at Morrison & Milliken, 2000; Reinardy, 2009; Vakola & work because I do not want to appear incompetent”. Bouradas, 2003). Respondents could answer a 5-point scale Respondents could answer a 5-point scale ranging from ranging from strongly disagree [1] to strongly agree [5]. strongly disagree [1] to strongly agree [5]. Satisfied or not satisfied with the current job: This has 4 Fear of isolation: This has 5 items. Questions included are items. Questions included are “All in all, I am satisfied with “When I think I will suffer and damage, I keep solution my job; In general, I do not like my job; In general, I like suggestions to myself; I do not want to be seen as a source working here; I feel free to express my thoughts in my of problems, I prefer to remain silent; I prefer to remain organization”. Respondents could give their answers on a 5- silent to avoid conflict; In order to protect my image and point scale ranging from strongly disagree [1] to strongly reputation, I prefer to remain silent; To protect my co- agree [5]. works, I prefer to remain silent”. Respondents could give their answers on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly Fearing of receiving negative feedback or information from disagree [1] to strongly agree [5]. the subordinate: This has 7 items. Questions included are “I do not speak up recommendations because I fear of top Fear of damaging the relationships: This has 10 items. management and my friends; I ignore some of the facts and Questions included are “If I mention problems in the remain silent in order to protect myself; I am afraid I'd see workplace, top management can react negatively against retaliation when I speak up, that is why, I prefer to remain me; I am afraid to express myself in a group; I frequently silent; I prefer to remain silent because of bad experiences remain silent at work because I do not think my friends are in the past; I do not dare to talk the truth about the critical honest with me; I do not have the authority to correct the situations, events or issues; High authorities may not situation; To protect my relationship with another understand me correctly; I do not trust the administrators.” individual; To avoid experiencing negative emotions; I Respondents could give their answers on a 5-point scale frequently remain silent at work to avoid embarrassing ranging from strongly disagree [1] to strongly agree [5]. myself; I expect someone else to speak up; To purposefully harm the organization; To purposefully harm another Organizational Loyalty: This has 4 items. Questions individual.” Respondents could give their answers on a 5- include like “The individuals who report problems are not point scale ranging from strongly disagree [1] to strongly welcomed in organizations; If I have a disagreement about agree [5]. the existing rules and practices in the workplace; Top management may perceive it as disloyalty against The demographic information included: “field, age, gender, remaining silent to my organization from harm.” marital status, and qualification''. Respondents could give their answers on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly disagree [1] to strongly agree [5]. 4. Analysis Attitudes of top management & supervisors: This has 12 Inferences are drawn from the questionnaires with the help items. Questions included are “As I am thinking of being of statistical analysis. To get information, factor analysis, excluded from the business environment if I prefer to regression analysis, and correlation analysis were carried remain silent; I think managers would not listen to my ideas out. The investigator received more responses than if I prefer to remain silent; There is a culture in my business expected. place that does not support to speak up clearly; Clearly 4.1. Validity Analysis speaking up does not provide any benefit; I frequently remain silent at work because I believe talking to other The validity analysis used in the study was tested by making people is just a waste of time; I do not propose on the explanatory factor analysis separately for each factor. changes and improvements in the organization; Due to Explanatory factor analysis was done employing SPSS negative experiences I have had with speaking up; I was Version 22. Before conducting explanatory factor analysis, instructed not to speak up; Management is not open to analyses were made regarding the suitability of each scale's other’s views, opinions, or ideas; To gain a personal questions to factor analysis individually and in groups. The advantage; I am intimidated by management; Due to bad suitability of the management innovation item group to management practices, I keep silent.” Respondents could factor analysis was checked with KMO and Barlett tests. give their answers on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly For the item group to be suitable for factor analysis, the disagree [1] to strongly agree [5]. Barlett P value must be less than 0.05, and the KMO value must be greater than 0.50. An explanatory factor analysis of Work-related factors: This has 8 items. Questions included each scale is given in Table 1 below. When Table 1 is are “Organizational rigid hierarchical structure prevents me examined, it is determined that each scale consists of one from expressing my ideas openly; Clearly speaking dimension, and the scale items are also collected in the individuals are exposed to injustice or ill-treatment; Talking relevant sub-dimensions. It is observed that factor load about business-related topics openly may lose my job; values in all dimensions are greater than 0.4, KMO value is When I report issues or problems my task or position may greater than 0.50, Barlett p values are less than 0.05, and be changed; I do not care what happens; I do not want others eigenvalues are greater than 1. In the job satisfaction to think negatively about me; I do not think it is worth the dimension, the lowest factor load is 0.512, and the highest effort to speak up; I do not think it will do any good to speak factor load is 0.759. In the negative feedback dimension, the up.” Respondents could answer a 5-point scale ranging from lowest factor load is 0.605, while the highest factor load is strongly disagree [1] to strongly agree [5]. 0.680. The lowest factor load in the organizational loyalty feedback dimension is 0.64, while the highest factor load is 21 Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27

0.750. While the lowest factor load is 0.573 in the 0.887 and the highest factor load 0.887. In fear of isolation, managerial and organizational factors feedback dimension, the lowest factor load is 0.536, while the highest factor load the highest factor load is 0.711. Work-related factors, the is 0.737. The fear of harming relationships is the lowest lowest factor load are 0.418, while the highest factor load is factor load in the dimension of receiving feedback is 0.446, 0.725. In the lack of experience, the dimension of receiving while the highest factor load is 0.712. feedback turned out to be the same as the lowest factor load Table 1: Explanatory Factor Analysis Results Dimensions Factors 1* 2* 3* 4* 5* 6* 7* 8* SAT1 0,701 SAT2 0.699 SAT3 0,759 SAT6 0.512 FRNF4 0,663 FRNF5 0,665 FRNF8 0,605 FRNF9 0,680 FRNF50 0,618 FRNF51 0,639 FRNF52 0,659 ORL22 0,648 ORL23 0,667 ORL33 0,751 ORL34 0,675 MOF14 0,573 MOF15 0,647 MOF16 0,711 MOF17 0,591 MOF26 0,574 MOF27 0,621 MOF29 0,693 MOF30 0,668 MOF44 0,656 MOF45 0,701 MOF46 0,671 MOF47 0,635 WRF18 0,677 WRF19 0,725 WRF20 0,722 WRF21 0,670 WRF39 0,578 WRF40 0,685 WRF48 0,491 WRF49 0,418 LOE37 0,886 LOE38 0,886 FOI7 0,536 FOI10 0,645 FOI11 0,722 FOI12 0,732 FOI13 0,737 FDR24 0,634 FDR25 0,651 FDR28 0,628 FDR31 0,712 FDR32 0,618 FDR35 0,446 FDR36 0,495 FDR41 0,653 FDR42 0,678 FDR43 0,641 KMO=0.67 KMO=0.762 KMO=0.747 KMO=0.908 KMO=0.823 KMO=0.838 KMO=0.564 KMO=0.51 The The The explained The The The explained The explained The explained explained variance explained explained variance variance explained variance variance = %46.08 variance variance = %38.517 = %47.085 variance = %45.44 = %41.927 Barlett = %41.827 = %39.666 Barlett Barlett = %78.471 Barlett Barlett p = 0.000 Barlett Barlett p = 0.000 p = 0.000 Barlett p = 0.000 p = 0.000 Eigenvalues p = 0.000 p = 0.000 Eigenvalues Eigenvalues p = 0.000 Eigenvalues Eigenvalues =2.304 Eigenvalues Eigenvalues = 3.852 = 1.883 Eigenvalues = 1.82 = 2.94 = 5.019 = 3.173 = 1.569

Note: * 1. Satisfied or not satisfied with current job 5. Work-related factors 2. Fearing of receiving negative feedback or information 6. Lack of experience from the subordinate 7. Fear of isolation 3. Organizational Loyalty 8. Fear of damaging the relationships 4. Attitudes of top management & supervisors Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 22

shown in Table 2. According to the values given in Table 2, 4.2. Reliability Analysis it is seen that the reliability coefficient of the scale used in The reliability analysis of the scale used in each dimension each dimension is quite high above 0.7, except for the job was analyzed using Cronbach's alpha test. The results of the satisfaction dimension. Since the reliability of the job reliability analysis of each scale in terms of dimensions are satisfaction scale was low, this dimension was removed from future analysis.

Table 2: Reliability Analysis Results Dimensions Cronbach’s alpha value (coefficient of reliability) Satisfied or not satisfied with current job -0.081* Fearing of receiving negative feedback or information from the 0.768 subordinate Organizational Loyalty 0.625 Attitudes of top management & supervisors 0.872 Work-related factors 0.770 Lack of experience 0.726 Fear of isolation 0.704 Fear of damaging the relationships 0.818 (Note: * This dimension was excluded from the analysis.)

In general, determining the factors affecting the Correlation analysis is conducted to determine the direction organizational silence of education worldwide and the and degree of the relationship between the research factors. factors affecting the organizational silence of academics in The descriptive statistics related to the factors are given in Pakistan and revealing the results and findings reveal the Table 3 below. According to Table 3, it can be observed importance of this study. that there is a positive and quite moderately significant 5. Findings and Interpretation relationship between fear of receiving negative feedback, fear of isolation, managerial and organizational factors, 5.1. Correlation Matrix work-related factors, fear of harming relationships, Findings show that auditors 'attitudes towards silence, organizational, loyalty, lack of experience, and senior management attitudes towards silence, and organizational silence. When the scores given by the communication facilities' are related and predict employees' participants to the research variables are examined; it is seen silence behavior. These three dimensions are also associated that the participants gave the lowest score to the factors with organizational commitment and job satisfaction related to work (Avg. = 2.286), and the highest score to the (Vakola & Bouradas, 2005). fear of isolation (Avg. = 2.955) and organizational loyalty (Avg. = 2.960). The average score given by the participants In this part of the research, deductions were made with the to organizational silence is 2.711. This value shows that the help of statistical analyses. Correlation analysis was participants exhibited an organizational silence at a performed to obtain information. The researcher got more moderate level. The participants gave a moderate score to answers than expected. It was revealed that the vast majority other factors. of employees remained silent on essential matters, knowingly and willingly.

Table 3: Correlation Matrix and Descriptive Statistics Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Negative feedback (1) - Fear of Isolation (2) 0.583** - Administrative and organizational factors (3) 0,674** 0.574** - Work-related factors (4) 0.652** 0.530** 0.820** - Fear of damaging relationships (5) 0.603** 0.538** 0.796** 0.746** - Organizational loyalty (6) 0.484** 0.487** 0.594** 0.618** 0.607** - Lack of experience (7) 0.392** 0.338** 0.540** 0.490** 0.643** 0.358** - Organizational silence (8) 0.778** 0.715** 0.885** 0.862** 0.884** 0.742** 0.704** - Average 2.594 2.955 2.629 2.286 2.648 2.960 2.504 2.711 St. deviation 0.761 0.773 0.751 0.724 0.717 0.823 1.021 0.628 Note: ** p = 0.01 significant, bidirectional, N = 410

23 Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27

5.2. Hypothesis Tests = 0.178), Fear of isolation (β = 0.188), Managerial and organizational factors (β = 0.231), Work-related factors (β Regression analysis was conducted to reveal the effect of = 0.191), Organizational loyalty (β = 0.004), Lack of negative feedback, fear of isolation, managerial and experience (β = 0.278) and fear of harming relationships (β organizational factors, work-related factors, fear of harming = 0.884) seem to have a positive effect on organizational relationships, organizational loyalty, and lack of experience silence (p = 0.000). In other words, the increase in these on organizational silence. It is seen that the regression dimensions increases organizational silence. In this case, model I have created has a linear regression model. F = H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6, and H7 hypotheses were 522.474 and therefore the P value was found 0.000. supported. The effects of area, age, gender, marital status, According to the result of Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and title variables on organizational silence were statistic, it was seen that the distribution of error terms was investigated. As seen in Table 4, a significant effect of suitable for normal distribution (p = 0.112). The result of organizational silence's mentioned variables could not be the regression analysis is given in Table 4 below. When determined. Table 4 is evaluated; Fear of receiving negative feedback (β Table 4: Hypothesis Tests Factors B Standard error β t p Constant 0,021 0,015 - 1,351 0,177 Fear of getting negative feedback 0,147 0,005 0,178 28,731 0,000 Fear of isolation 0,153 0,004 0,188 34,530 0,000 Managerial and organizational factors 0,193 0,007 0,231 28,280 0,000 Work-related factors 0,166 0,007 0,191 24,426 0,000 Organizational loyalty 0,161 0,004 0,004 38,005 0,000 Lack of experience 0,171 0,003 0,278 55,654 0,000 Fear of harming relationships 0,774 0,020 0,884 38,162 0,000 Area 0,001 0,001 0,005 1,094 0,275 Age 0,004 0,002 0,007 1,518 0,130 Gender 0,005 0,005 0,005 1,029 0,304 Marital status -0,009 0,004 -0,011 -2,432 0,015 Title -0,002 0,003 -0,003 -,598 0,550 2 R=0.997, R =0.993, F(11,398)=522.474

2002). The results of this study are in parallel with our 6. Conclusion and Discussion results mentioned above. Factors affecting the organizational silence include: Some of the results of previous studies on this subject also satisfaction, fearing of receiving negative feedback or support this study’s results. Namely, some of the previous information from the subordinate, fear of isolation, researchers considered silence as loyalty (Bagheri et al., managerial and organizational factors, work-related factors, 2012; Ivkovic & Shelley, 2010; Nikmaram et al., 2012). In fear of harming relationships, organizational loyalty, and different studies that have been done before, silence is very lack of experience. common among bureaucratic organizations such as military As a result of the research, it is observed that there is a and semi-military organizations, while it is not common in positive and moderately significant relationship between the our study (Ivkovic & Shelley, 2010; Nikmaram et al., 2012). fear of receiving negative feedback, fear of isolation, Although this is not the main reason, group culture and managerial and organizational factors, work-related factors, behaviors cause employees to remain silent because people fear of harming relationships, organizational loyalty, lack of have similar or the same lifestyles. experience and organizational silence. When the scores On the other hand, demographic features such as staff, given by the participants to the research variables in the gender, age, ethnicity, and factors such as the manager's analysis of the data were examined; it is seen that the race may affect the distribution of concepts related to participants gave the lowest score to the factors related to organizational silence, as this difference between staff and work (Avg. = 2.286), and the highest score to the fear of managers affects attitudes. On the other hand, vertical isolation (Avg. = 2.955) and organizational loyalty (Avg. = differentiation in the organizational hierarchy also has 2.960). The average score given by the participants to effects on silence (Morrison & Milliken, 2004; Panahi et al., organizational silence is 2.711. This value shows that the 2012). However, in this study, it has been revealed that participants exhibited organizational silence at a moderate demographic features do not have much effect on level. The participants gave other factors a moderate score. organizational silence. In this study on organizational silence, the researcher The negative feedback of management fear, which is an received more answers than expected. It was revealed that essential factor that causes organizational silence, suggested the vast majority of employees remained silent due to some by Slade (2008), supports the results of the data we obtained variables regarding the critical situation, issues, events, and in this study. On the other hand, Premeaux and Bedeian even their thoughts and ideas. The reasons why employees (2003) believe that the employees continue to speak openly do not speak purposefully are quite different. It can be said and participate in the discussions about the organization, that problems or concerns, along with being silenced or silent, may be invisible in the organization (McGowan, Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 24 although they are confident, which is similar to this study current practices do not work. Due to the organizations' data analysis. silence, especially the senior management's life in the enterprises may lack specific knowledge about the It is needed to comprehend the nature of organizational information. The most important reason is the fear of getting silence. Morrison & Milliken (2000) and Dan; Jun, & Jiu- negative feedback from senior managers. cheng (2009) point out that organizational silence facilitates and influences learning and development by preventing Top management believes that employees are often self- negative feedback on the information. This demonstrates interested and unreliable. They believe that top management that existing practices do not work. In particular, senior always knows best about corporate matters, not employees. management does not know the lack of important This study should also be replicated in universities in information and can interpret silence as consensus and Turkey to see the similarities or differences. success. Senior managers' fear of receiving negative Although organizational silence is typical in businesses, it feedback ignores the message, rejects it wrongly, and cannot be said that there are sufficient empirical studies on attacks the resource's credibility when negative feedback education and teaching staff at universities all over the comes from below rather than from above, is less accurate world. Organizational silence has much impact on business and legitimate, and one's strength and reliability. development and negatively affects organizational Top management believes employees are often self- effectiveness. Therefore, this empirical study aims to interested and untrustworthy. They have strong ideas and measure how crucial organizational silence is for an beliefs that top management always knows best about organization. Based on the findings of this study, there are organizational importance issues, not employees. several actual results discussed. Finally, it can be said that there is a positive and quite Employees working in organizations know the truth about moderately significant relationship between fear of certain issues and problems facing the organizations, yet receiving negative feedback, fear of isolation, managerial they do not dare to speak up to their superiors (Nardelli & and organizational factors, work-related factors, fear of Levitt, 2004). Therefore organizational silence affects many harming relationships, organizational loyalty, lack of organizations to some degree. To break the walls of silence, experience, and organizational silence. organizations need to seek out opposing ideas or negative information and try to compensate for them. Directors, 7. Suggestions CEOs should allow employees to stay anonymous if they Workers in organizations know the truth about some of the can choose to come forward with sensitive information. problems and problems organizations and they face, but In order to break the silence and have high performance in they do not dare to tell the truth to their superiors. Therefore, the organizations, top management should work harder to organizational silence affects many institutions to some counteract the natural human tendency to avoid negative extent. To break down the walls of silence, organizations feedback, to build an open and trusting climate, to need to try to find and compensate for both dissenting ideas compensate employees that come forward with sensitive or and negative information. It is useful for directors, CEOs, risky information, create formal mechanisms in which and employees to allow this if they want to stand out with employees can speak up anonymously (Ehtiyar & sensitive information (Brinsfield, 2009; Dyne et al., 2003). Yanardağ, 2008). To break the silence and perform high in organizations, It is also suggested that organizations should not let the senior management should work harder to avoid the natural employees be silent because of some factors such as fear, human disposition to avoid negative feedback, create an isolation, etc. On the contrary, these organizations should open and reliable climate, compensate employees who stand help their staff to be able to speak up about their ideas, out with sensitive or risky information, and create formal opinions, information, and knowledge. They should mechanisms where employees can speak anonymously encourage speaking plainly because silence will not only (Bagheri et al., 2012; Nikolaou, Vakola, & Bourantas, damage organizations but individuals as well. 2011). Although organizational silence is commonly seen in In this study, factors affecting organizational silence were organizations, it cannot be said that there are enough tried to be measured with eight independent variables. The empirical studies related to this issue, especially correlated study revealed that the teaching staff did not dare/speak to to teaching staffs at universities all over the world. the manager, manager, and senior management, especially Organizational silence has excessive effects on on some subjects. One of the essential variables for organizations’ ability to being developed, and it affects educators is that they believe it is unlikely to change organizational effectiveness negatively. Therefore, it can be unwanted organizational conditions. Therefore, they can beneficial to conduct more empirical studies. refuse to take action on this issue.

In addition, employees of institutions fear isolation, etc. it is recommended not to remain silent due to some factors. On References the contrary, these organizations need to help their employees talk about their ideas, thoughts, and information. Aboramadan, M.; Turkmenoglu, M. A.; Dahleez, K. A. and They should encourage open speech because silence will Cicek, B. (2020). Narcissistic leadership and harm not only organizations but also individuals. behavioral cynicism in the hotel industry: the role of employee silence and negative workplace gossiping. It is necessary to grasp the nature of organizational silence. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Many researchers state that organizational silence and Management. 25 Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27

Akbaba, A. (2018). İlk, Orta ve Lise Yöneticilerinin enterprises. International Journal of Economics and Yönetimde Etkililik Düzeylerinin Öğretmen Bakış Business Research. Açılarıyla Değerlendirilmesi. Social Mentality and Çimen, B., & Karadağ, E. (2019). Spiritual leadership, Researcher Thinkers Journal, 4(10). organizational culture, organizational silence and Alqarni, S.A.Y. (2020). How school climate predicts academic success of the school. Educational teachers’ organizational silence. International Administration: Theory and Practice, 25(1). Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Dan, L.; Jun, W. and Jiu-cheng, M. (2009). "Organizational Studies, 12(1). silence; a survey on employees working in a Alparslan, A. M. K., M. (2012). The Interaction between Telecommunication Company”. IEEE Xplore. Organizational Silence Climate and Employee De los Santos, J.A.A.; Rosales, R.A.; Falguera, C.C.; Firmo, Silence Behavior: A Survey on Instructors of C.N.; Tsaras, K. and Labrague, L.J. (2020). Impact Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi. Yayınlanmamış of organizational silence and favoritism on nurse's Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Mehmet Akif Ersoy work outcomes and psychological well‐being. Üniversitesi, Isparta. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nuf(Wiley Online Bagheri, G., Zarei, R., & Aeen, M. N. (2012). Library). Organizational Silence (Basic Concepts and its Demirtaş, Z. (2018). The Relationships Between Development Factors). Ideal Type of Management, Organizational Values, Job Satisfaction, 1(1), 47-58. Organizational Silence And Affective Commitment. Bayramoğlu, D. and Çetinkanat, C.A. (2020). Examining European Journal of Education Studies, 4(11). the Relationship between Organizational DeShon, R.P.; Kozlowski, S.W.J.; Schmidt, A.M.; Milner, Commitment and Organizational Silence of K.R. and Wiechmann, D. (2004). A Multiple-Goal, Teachers. Revista De Cercetare Si Interventie Multilevel Model of Feedback Effects on the Sociala, 71. Regulation of Individual and Team Performance. Beheshtifar, M., Borhani, H., & Moghadam, M. N. (2012). Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6). Destructive Role of Employee Silence in Donaghey, J., Cullinane, N., Dundon, T., & Wilkinson, A. Organizational Success. International Journal. (2009). Re-assessing the concept of employee Bildik, B. (2009). Liderlik Tarzları, Örgütsel Sessizlik ve silence: a critical review. Paper presented at the Örgütsel Bağlılık İlişkisi. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek International Labour Process Conference. Lisans Tezi, Gebze Yüksek Teknoloji Enstitüsü. Donaghey, J., Cullinane, N., Dundon, T., & Wilkinson, A. Bordbar, G.; Shad, F.S.; Rahimi, E. and Rostami, N.A. (2011). Reconceptualising employee silence (2019) . Effect of Organizational Silence on problems and prognosis. Work, Employment & Employees’ Productivity. International Journal of Society, 25(1), 51-67. Management, Accounting and Economics, 6(3). Doo, E-Y and Kim, M. (2020). Effects of hospital nurses' Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of Silence: The internalized dominant values, organizational silence, Dynamic Effects of Diversity on Organizational horizontal violence, and organizational Voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1393- communication on patient safety. Research in 1417. Nursing & Health (wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nur) Brinsfield, C. T. (2009). Employee Silence: Investigation of Dimensionality, Development of Measures, and Dyne, L. V., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Examination of Related Factors. Unpublished PhD Conceptualizing Employee Silence and Employee Thesis, The Ohio State University, Ohio. Voice as Multidimensional Constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6). Broeng, S. (2018). Action Research on Employee Silence: The need for Negative Capability in Leadership. Erdoğdu, M. (2018). Effect of Organizational Justice Management Revue, 29(4). Behaviors on Organizational Silence and Cynicism: A Research on Academics from Schools of Physical Brown, B. B. (2003). Employees’ Organizational Education and Sports. Universal Journal of Commitment and their Perception of Supervisors’ Educational Research, 6(4). Relations-Oriented and Task-Oriented Leadership Behaviors. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Virginia Erkutlu, H. and Chafra, J. (2019). Leader Machiavellianism Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia. and follower silence: The mediating role of relational identification and the moderating role of Büyüköztürk, Ş., vd., (2016). Bilimsel Araştırma psychological distance. European Journal of Yöntemleri (21.baskı). Ankara: Pegem Akademi. Management and Business Economics, 28(3). Çavuşoğlu, S. & Köse, S. (2019). BAİBÜ Sosyal Bilimler Greenberg, J., & Edwards, M. S. (2009). Voice and Silence Enstitüsü Dergisi, Cilt: 19, Sayı: 2/Yaz: 365-387. in Organizations: Emerald Group Publishing. Çetinkaya, A.S. & Karayel, S. (2019). The effects of Harvey, M. G., Buckley, M. R., Heames, J. T., Zinko, R., organizational silence on work alienation in service Brouer, R. L., & Ferris, G. R. (2007). A bully as an Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27 26

archetypal destructive leader. Journal of Leadership International Journal of Human Capital in Urban & Organizational Studies, 14(2). Management, 3(2): 89-96. Henriksen, K. & Dayton, E. (2006). Organizational silence Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational and hidden threats to patient safety. Health Services silence: A barrier to change and development in a Research, 41(4). pluralistic world. Academy of Management Review. Ivkovic, S. K., & Shelley, T. O. C. (2010). The code of Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2004). Sounds of silence and disciplinary fairness: A comparison of Silence. Sternbusiness, Spring/Summer. Czech police supervisor and line officer views. Nafei, W. A. (2016). The Impact of Organizational Silence Policing: An International Journal of Police on Job Attitudes: A Study on Pharmaceutical Strategies & Management, 33(3). Industry in Egypt. Case Studies Journal, 5(8). Jaros, S. (2007). Meyer and Allen model of organizational Nardelli, R. & Levitt, A. (2004). The Latest Models. commitment: Measurement issues. ICFAI Journal of STERNbusiness. Organizational Behavior, 6(4), 7-25. Nartgün, S.E. and Kartal, V. (2013). Öğretmenlerin örgütsel Kahveci, G. (2010). The Relationship between sinizm ve örgütsel sessizlik hakkındaki görüşleri. Organizational Silence and Organizational Bartın University Journal of Faculty of Education. Commitment in Primary Schools. Unpublished Master Thesis, University of Fırat, Elaziğ/Turkey. Nas, Z. (2011). The Effect of Cross Cultural Training on the Performance of Expatriates in Business Kasemsap, K. (2017). The Fundamentals of Organizational Organizations. Published PhD Dissertation. National Citizenship Behavior. In Christiansen, B., & University of Modern Languages, Chandan, H. C. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Islamabad/Pakistan. Human Factors in Contemporary Workforce Development, IGI Global. Nikmaram, S., Yamchi, H. G., Shojaii, S., Zahrani, M. A., & Alvani, S. M. (2012). Study on Relationship Korkmaz, E. (2018). The Relationship Between Between Organizational Silence and Commitment in Organizational Silence and Allen-Meyer Iran. World Applied Sciences Journal, 17(10). Organizational Commitment Model: A Research in the Health Sector in Turkey. Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Nikolaou, I., Vakola, M., & Bourantas, D. (2011). The role University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 3(1). of silence on employees' attitudes “the day after” a merger. Personnel Review, 40(6). Liu, D., Wu, J., & Ma, J. (2009). Organizational silence: A survey on employees working in a Okpara, J. O. (2004). Job satisfaction and organizational telecommunication company. Conference Paper · commitment: Are there differences between August 2009, IEEE Xplore. American and Nigerian managers employed in the US MNCs in Nigeria. Briarcliffe College, McGowan, R. A. (2002). Organizational Discourses: Switzerland: Academy of Business & Administrative Sounds of Silence. Unpublished PhD Thesis, York Science. University. Panahi, B., Veiseh, S. M., Divkhar, S., & Kamari, F. (2012). Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and An empirical analysis on influencing factors on antecedents of affective, continuance and normative organizational silence and its relationship with commitment to the organization. Journal of employee’s organizational commitment. Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. Management Science, 2. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Advanced topics in Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: organization behavior series. Commitment in the Quiescence and acquiescence as responses to workplace: Theory, research, and application. Sage perceived injustice. Research in Personnel and Publications, Inc. Human Resources Management, 20. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T. and Boulian. P. conceptualization of organizational commitment. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89. satisfaction and turnover among psychiatric Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology. L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative Premeaux, S. F., & Bedeian, A. G. (2003). Breaking the commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of Silence: The Moderating Effects of Self‐Monitoring antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal in Predicting Speaking Up in the Workplace. Journal of vocational behavior, 61(1), 20-52. of Management Studies, 40(6). Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). The road to Exploratory Study of Employee Silence: Issues that empowerment: Seven questions every leader should Employees Do not Communicate Upward and Why. consider. Organizational Dynamics. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6). Reinardy, S. (2009). Beyond Satisfaction: Journalists Doubt M. Mirzapour & M. Baoosh (2018). Investigating effective Career Intentions as Organizational Support factors on the creation of organizational silence. Diminishes and Job Satisfaction Declines. Atlantic 27 Nas, Z. / Anemon Muş Alparslan Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 2021 9(1) 9-27

Journal of Communication, 17, Routledge, Taylor & Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence Francis Group. on critical work issues: The cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, Rodriguez, R. (2004). "Overcoming organizational silence: 61(1). leveraging polyphony as a mean for positive change". Paper presented at the “e-motionalizing Tucker, A. L., & Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Why hospitals Management: The Challenge for Globalizing do not learn from failures: organizational and Organizations”, Minneapolis, USA. psychological dynamics that inhibit system change. California Management Review, 45(2). Sayğan, F. N. (2011). Relationship between affective commitment and organizational silence: A Tumwesigye, G. (2010). The relationship between conceptual discussion. International Journal of perceived organizational support and turnover Social Sciences and Humanity Studies 3(2). intentions in a developing country: The mediating role of organizational commitment. Afr. J. Bus. Shirbagi, N., (2007). Exploring organizational commitment Manage, 4(6). and leadership frames within Indian and Iranian higher education institutions. Bulletin of Education Vakola, M., & Bouradas, D. (2005). Antecedents and and Research, 29(1). consequences of organisational silence: an empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27(5). Slade, M. R. (2008). The Adaptive Nature of Organizational Silence: A Cybernetic Exploration of the Hidden Warren, D. E. (2003). Constructive and destructive Factory. Unpublished PhD Thesis, George deviance in organizations. Academy of Management Washington University, Washington. Review, 28(4). Soycan, Ş. H. (2010). Bankalarda Birleşme Sonrası Ehtiyar, R & Yanardağ, M. (2008). Organizational Silence: Örgütsel Bağlılık ve Örgütsel Sessizlik İlişkisi. A Survey on Employees Working in a Chain Hotel. Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Marmara Tourism and Hospitality Management, 14(1). Üniversitesi, İstanbul. Yousef, D. A. (2003). Validating the dimensionality of Takhsha, M., Barahimi, N., Adelpanah A. and Salehzadeh, Porter et al.'s measurement of organizational R. (2020). The effect of workplace ostracism on commitment in a non-Western culture setting. The knowledge sharing: the mediating role of International Journal of Human Resource organization-based self-esteem and organizational Management, 14(6). silence. Journal of Workplace Learning, 32(6).